Allahabad High Court
DR PIYUSHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 8 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petition is not maintainable for High Court interference; the appropriate remedy is to approach the magistrate under Section 175(3) B.N.S.S./Section 156(3) CrPC, and the writ is dismissed.
Summary
Dr. Piyush filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the police to conduct a proper investigation in Crime No. 284 of 2026 under sections of the B.N.S. that correspond to IPC sections 420 and 120‑B. The Court examined the scope of Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, as explained in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 2 SCC 409, and its counterpart Section 175(3) of the B.N.S.S., 2023. It held that any grievance about the investigation must be raised before the concerned magistrate under these provisions, not before the High Court under Article 226. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as an inappropriate matter for the Court’s interference.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the police to conduct a proper investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC/Section 175(3) B.N.S.S.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S., 2023 — s. 175(3)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 156(3), 173(8)
Subjects
- Mandamus
- Police investigation
- Section 156(3) CrPC
- Section 175(3) B.N.S.S.
- Article 226
- High Court jurisdiction
- Criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22950 of 2026
Dr Piyush
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 8 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhishek Narayan, Chandrakant
Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 45
HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the AGA for the State.
2. The present petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs :-
"(1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and
directing the respondent nos. 2 & 3 to make proper investigation in Case Crime No.
284 of 2026, Under Sections 318(4), 61(2) of B.N.S. (Corresponding Sections 420,
120-B I .P.C.) , Police Station- Kotwali Lalitpur, District- Lalitpur, dated 17.03.2026."
3. In Paragraph nos. 15 to 17 of its judgment in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 409, the Supreme Court has
observed as follows : -
"15. Section 156(3) provides for a check by the Magistrate on the police performing
its duties under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. In cases where the Magistrate finds that the
police has not done its duty of investigating the case at all, or has not done it
satisfactorily, he can issue a direction to the police to do the investigation properly,
and can monitor the same.
16. The power in the Magistrate to order further investigation under Section 156(3) is
an independent power, and does not affect the power of the investigating officer to
CRLP No. 22950 of 2026
2
further investigate the case even after submission of his report vide Section 173(8).
Hence the Magistrate can order re-opening of the investigation even after the police
submits the final report, vide State of Bihar vs. J.A.C. Saldanha (SCC : AIR para 19).
17. In our opinion Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to include all such powers
in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it
includes the power to order registration of an F.I.R. and of ordering a proper
investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been
done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., though briefly
worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as
are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation."
4. The provisions in B.N.S.S., 2023 which corresponds to Section 156(3)
of Cr.P.C. is Section 175(3) of B.N.S.S. In case, the petitioner has any
grievance against the manner in which the investigation is being
conducted, the petitioner has the remedy to approach the concerned
Magistrate under Section 175(3) of B.N.S.S. / Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
5. It is not a case for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, at this stage.
6. The writ petition is dismissed.
(Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Salil Kumar Rai,J.)
September 30, 2026
Rama Kant
Digitally signed by :-
RAMA KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…